…as well as a letter of instruction, ultimately from the Ministry of Interior, to the police in Ajia to interview the two accused, a non essential and a biased witness as well as a fake person called “Th. Vallianatou.”

The letter is unambiguous proof that the cover up of a de facto murder attempt made against me on account of my journalism activities in April 2015 was organized by the highest levels of government.

This letter will, in fact, be the basis of a new set of criminal charges.

Verdict delivered 08 April 2016 (Document A)
Received by party Jane Buergermeister 18th April 2016
To the Court of Appeal,
I, a party to the above case, would like to appeal of a decision by state prosecutor Katarina Papaioannou to arraign Theodekti and Theonike on the charges of embezzlement, bodily harm and defamation on grounds that the verdict is fundamentally flawed and represents a substantial miscarriage of justice against a journalist seeking redress for a de facto murder attempt made against me by Theodekti on account of my journalist activities, and seeking redress for a cover up which implicate Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras as well as Hedge Fund Billionaire George Soros. (Evidence 1, Δ 15 – 218 19, Section 4 and 4. I and 4. II)
Furthermore, I note that instructions to Larisa police to direct the investigation to a fake person, Th. Valliantou, originate from the Ministry of Interior in Athens.
This fake person Th. Vallianatou features as one of the accused instructed to be questioned as a witness by Larisa deputy police commissioner Asterios Mantziokas in a letter sent on 22nd September 2015 (Αριθ. Πρωτ. 1053/ 3 / 136 – Γ with a stamp with the date 29.09.2015 and Αριθ. Πρωτ. 1053/ 3 / 51) . This letter identifies the origin of the instructions as the Ministry of Interior and Public Administration in the letterhead. (Evidence 2)
But Th. Vallianatou was never questioned and their ID and tax number were, apparently, never obtained. Although Papaioannou as the state prosecutor is responsible for following up on all aspects of the investigation, she has not addressed the failure of a witness, Th. Valliantou, called by the police to give a statement to give that statement and she has not addressed the failure of the police to discover their identity in the form of an ID card or tax number in her verdict in violation of her duty of care.
State prosecutor Papaioannou has, in fact, been complicit in perpetuating the fiction of the relevance of a “person” to my case who has literally been invented out of thin air by the Ministry of Interior to direct attention away from the accused and the fact that she was acting as part of a large conspiracy pointing at the involvement of Alexis Tsipras himself.
I presented substantial evidence of the perversion of justice by the previous state prosecutor Christina Fasoula in February 2016 including a handwritten note by Police officer Evanggelos Toutounas directing the investigation to the wrong person, wrong monastery and a fake person Th. Vallianatou (Evidence 3, Α Π 372). The approach used exposes me to a penalty of either defamation charges or forcible confinement.
State Prosecutor Papaioannou took over the case in February but she failed to address the flaws. She did not take other relevant evidence into account in determining the charges for which the accused are to be araigned, and this constitutes an error of law.
State Prosecutor Papaioannou took over the case in February 2016 after I presented substantial evidence of the perversion of justice by the previous state prosecutor Christina Fasoula. (Evidence 3, Α Π 372)
Evidence of the suppression of essential witnesses and other evidence by prosecutor Fasoula was sent to the Areois Pagos by Larisa court officials and I also submitted evidence on 4th April 2016.
The General District Attorney’s Office of the Areios Pagos received the following documents:
1. Αναφορά Αστυνομίας Λάρισας, Μάιος 2015, ΑΠ 1053 3 136 B (Evidence 4)
2. Αναφορά Αστυνομίας Λάρισας, Ιούλιος 2015 ΑΠ 1053 3 136 B (Evidence 5)
3. Αναφορά εισαγγελέα Λάρισας, Ιανουάριος 2016, Δ 15 218 (Evidence 1)
4. Αναφορά για τη διαστρέβλωση της δικαιοσύνης, Φεβρουάριος 2016, Α Π 372 (Evidence 3)
5. Υποβολή στον εισαγγελέα της Λάρισας σχετικά με την παραδοχή της απόπειρας δωροδοκίας από τον πρώην δικηγόρο μου και κατάχρηση μίας μήνυσης συκοφαντικής δυσφήμισης για τη συγκάλυψη αποδείξεων αδικημάτων Δ 15 /218, ΕΓ 4 – 16 /13, Γ16/ 508 (Evidence 6)
A copy of the confirmation of receipt from the Areios Pagos. (Evidence 7)
State Prosecutor Papaioannou received a complete set of the above evidence on 7.04.2016.
Yet state prosecutor Papaioannou addressed none of these serious flaws of which she was aware, or obliged to be aware, before rushing through her verdict on April 8th 2016.
It is not compatible with prosecutor Papaioannou’s duty to investigate a serious crime to rush through her verdict in two months without adding any new investigation. The way she has ignored essential witnesses and evidence exposes her to the accusation of the perversion of justice and criminal charges, which I will also file againt her.
There are only four witness statments included by Papaioannou as the substance of the case, the accused and a non essential and biased witness, and only the two accused and the non essential and biased witnesses are called to appear at the trial on 28 11 2016. I am also erroneously classified as a witness.
(Evidence witness statements, 8)
But the versions of the accused Theodekti and Theonike are contradicted by the versions of non essential witness Stavroula and biased witness Garyfalya in every essential point. Theodekti and Theonike, who make statements not under oath, claim I acquired bruises on 20th April 2015 by falling on furniture in a state of drunkenness but Stavroula and Garyfalya make no mention of alcohol or drunkenness at all, even though Stavroula picked me up at about 6 pm on 20th April 2015 and drove me to Larisa. Neither Stavroula nor Garyfalya make any mention of alcohol. Stavroula says my relationship with the sisters was “healthy” and she cannot understand the sudden turn of events in April. Any prosecutor who looks just at the four witness statements must realize that they are inconsistent with each other . The versions of the two accused are implausbible, factually wrong, full of contradictions in themselves, and vacillating.
A prosecutor is obliged to do more than look at just the versions of the accused. A prosecutor is obliged to look at my claims and my evidence. State prosecutor has disregarded vital evidence proving that Theodektiand Theonike are lying. Specifically, she has disregarded emails showing that I was about to leave the monastery when Theodekti made her attempt to forcibly confine me, undermining Theodekti’s claims that she wanted me to leave and I refused to leave. Papaioanno has also disregarded all the evidence of my bank transfers to Theodekti’s private acount and all the evidence that I never received the money back. Instead, she has adopted Theodekti’s lies about my money as the basis of her charges against Theodekti in violation of her requirement to be neutral precisely in order to obscure the point that I was about to leave the monastery and asked for the sum of money I had left in the safe keeping back from Theoktisti.
Witness Theoktisti has never been questioned even though both I and Theodekti call her as witness in violation fo Papaioannou’s obligation to conduct a proper examination to discover the facts.
In addition state prosecutor Papaioanno lied to me about the erroneous classification of me as witness, withheld vital information from about the verdict, and attempted to stop me, and instigated others to attempt to stop me, from availing of my right to appeal it.

Prosecutor Papaioannou’s irregular, defective verdict even exposes me wrongfully to a penalty such as defamation or forcible pyschiatrization at the end of the trial should her failings not be addressed by the Appeal Court. Because of her erroneous classification of me as witness, upheld by giving me false information, I would not be able to appeal, representing a substantial miscarraige of justice.
The forced pyschiatrization of a journalist on account of their exposure of wrong doing is a serious felony offence. When state prosecutors are involved in setting up a journalist for just such a forcible pyschiatrization by introducing so many substantial procedural violations into their case, they are exposing themselves to the accusation of joining in the conspiracy to silence a journalist orchestrated by the highest levels of government in Greece, specifically Prime Minister Alexis Tispras, whom evidence shows is a reader of my blog.
It would be wrong to effectively think away the fact that an accused person is guilty of an attempt a premeditated murder if she ought to have been convicted of that offence if the state prosecutors and police had conducted a proper investigation.
It would be wrong to effectively think away the fact that police and state prosecutors are guilty of an attempt to cover up that a premeditated murder if these individuals ought to have been convicted of that offence on the basis of an impartial examination of the evidence.
It would be wrong to effectively misuse a trial to set the victim up for a penalty because of an irregular, defective approach by police and state prosecutors that exposes them to criminal charges, especially if it emerges that the orders for a cover up came from the Ministry of Interior and, therefore, implicate Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.
In this appeal, I refer to the documents submitted to State Prosecutor Papaionnou and to the Areios Pagos in Athens. These cover much the same ground as the appeal. It can be seen from the fact that Papioannou had the evidence of substantial violations in procedure in conducting this investigation by her predecessor in her possession, and deliberately, wilfully ignored it and continued the same approach.
These documents are submitted as part of the evidence for this appeal.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AS A PARTY
It is necessary to clear the quetion of whether I am a party and, therefore, have the right of appeal.
I am a party and have the right of appeal as is established by the following:
1. the criminal charges I filed on 22nd April 2015 which state that I am a party (Evidence, ΑΠ 1053 3 136 B, Δ -2β Δ -2γ ΜΗΝΥΣΗ )
2. the payment of the 50 euro fee on 18th April 2016 required to be technically considered a party (Evidence, 9 )
3. the fact that as a result of paying the 50 euro fee I was able to access the file and obtain the verdict as well as the police orders identifying the Ministry of Interior as well as the four witness statements
In. the fact I am the victim of serious crimes and the administration of justice requires that I can appeal a fundamentally flawed decision based on the incorrect application of law to my detriment
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I asked Papaioannou in a written questions whether I was a party or witness on 23rd March 2016. (Evidence 10)
In the same set of questions, I asked Papaioannou who Th. Vallianatou was, and details of their name and address. (Evidence 10)
Papaioannou told me to retun in two months to receive an answer i.e. at the end of May.
In the interval, Papaioannou rushed through her verdict on 8th April 2016 without informing me and without conducting an investigation.
In violation of my right to be fully informed about my case, I found out only by chance that Papaioannou had delivered her verdict on the case when delivering a complete copy of all evidence to the court on 7th April. The next day, on Friday, 8th April, I was told that Theodekti and Theonike would be prosecuted by the secretary in the office 4 of the criminal section but for minor offences. She also wrote the charges on a scrap note for me to have translated .
When I asked about a written copy of the verdict, I was told to return on Monday 11th April. The reason given to me was that Papaioannou had not finished writing it.
On Monday, I again went to the court, and I again asked to see the written verdict so that I could avail of my right to appeal if necessary. I was repeatedly given the false information by court officials in office 4 and 5, Criminal Division, Larisa court, that I could not see the written verdict because Papaioannou had still not finished writing it. I was told to return on Thursday. On Thursday 14th April, Papaioannou in person told me there was no written verdict available for me to see and to come back in twenty days to obtain the verdict after the Greek Orthodox Easter on 1st May.
It so happened that I went to the court the following Monday, 18th April with a document to to clarify the crimes that Theodekti should be arraigned for. The secretary refused my document on the orders of Papaioannou, telling me the case was closed. When I asked to see the verdict, I was again told that the verdict was not finished. I was, however, given a document with the date for the trial.
By chance, I saw my lawyer in the corridor, showed him the document with the trial date. He told me there must be a written verdict if there was an official trial date and made inquiries to the secretary. Through him, I discovered for the first time that Papaioannou had already issued a wiritten verdict. I also found out for the first time that I had to pay a 50 euro fee to fulfil the requirment to be a party technically. I immediately paid the 50 euro fee and obtained a copy of the verdict and the all the documents in the file that were not mine i.e. the four witness statements. I was told by court officials that I could appeal and was given the information I was told I needed to make an appeal ie a form, a about the fee of 300 euros.
The following morning, I received a phone call from a secretary calling on behalf of prosectuor Papaioannou (I do not speak Greek) telling me in violation of my right to accurate information that I was not allowed to appeal because I was a witness.
I explained I had formallly stated on my criminal charges at the Larisa police station in April 2015 that I wanted to be a party and I had also, in the meantime, paid the 50 fee to be a party technically.
I was pressured not pay the 300 euro fee required for the appeal because I was told that no one would read the appeal anyway.
The secretary then told me to speak to my lawyer without informing me that the court had rung him. When I arrived at his office, lawyer Asterios Liapis told me the court had just rung him. Asterios Liapis agreed I was a party because I had paid the fee and that I was entitled to appeal.
But, apparently under the improper influence of the court, he gave me false information designed to undermine my right to avail of an appeal to correct a fundamentally flawed verdict. He repeatedly said to me that prosecutor Papaiannou is the competent state prosecutor and the only one who could make a final and conclusive judgement. He stold me now she had made her judgement, I had no right to appeal.
I note that Asterios Liapis was summoned to the Ministry of Interior in Athens shortly after helping me in my case following evidence that my previous lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos had been bribed. He himself admitted it in a handwritten note.
However, the correct legal position is that only a competent state prosecutor can issue a verdict that i final and conclusive verdict. If the state prosecutor is shown to be incompetent and not to have applied the law correctly, and their verdict is flawed, defective as a result, that verdict can be appealed.
In short, prosecutor Papaioannou and other court officials withheld from me the information that I was a witness and not a party. They gave me the misleading impression that I was a a party and could see the verdict when it was finally written when in reality I had been classified as a witness and the verdict had already been written.
Through the use of this deceit, they conspired to stop me availing of my right to appeal to a verdict that is not the result of harmless errors but of deliberate errors that would, if applied, result in a serious miscarriage of justice but also expose me to a penalty.
To conclude, I ask the court of appeal to set aside any spurious, technical or other pretexts which may serve to deny me my right of appeal of a verdict which is so fundamentally flawed that it could even result in serious damage to me.
State prosecutor Papaioannou and other justice and police officials cannot to be allowed attempt to hide irregularity or defect in the proceedings by undermining my right of appeal without the court of appeal exposing itself to the accusation of bias.
I note that a court in Munster, Germany, granted me the right to appeal a verdict even though I am just a witness mentioned in a couple of lines of a civil case involving a defamation case between Theodekti and Kirsten Funke. I was only able to appeal in January 2016 because, in a repeating pattern, I was not informed by my apparently bribed lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos of the verdict and therefore, could not avail of my right to appeal. (Evidence 1, Δ 15 – 218)
If Munster finally recognized my right to appeal 9 months later on as a witness, how much more then must the Larisa court adhere to the principle of the right to appeal when am a party, named a such in a criminal charges filed at Larisa police station on 22nd April 2015, have paid the 50 euro fee to make me a technically a part, and am aggrieved in life and property by the actions of Theodekti and others and have a unambiguous, verifiable evidence of a cover up.
To repeat, the requirement to administer justice in a case concerning violence comes before any legal technicalties. But as it is, I technically fulfil all the requirements of law to be a party and not a witness, and to file an appeal. The classification of me as a witness was erroneous. Technically it may have been correct at the time of the verdict issued on 8th April 2016. But this technical fault was only due to the fact that information I had actively sought had been withheld from me deliberately and systematically by state prosecutor Papaioannou. I have now paid the fee, am party, and have the rights of a party, as is shown by the fact I was able to access the file, obtain a copy of the verdict.
The Appeals court must acknowledge that I am factually, legally and technically a party and entitled to appeal, and take into account the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this appeal and the illegal attempts to stop it.

BACKGROUND
In the light of this, I turn to the issues raised in the appeal. In order to do so it is necessary to give some factual backdrop to the case. I am a journalist who has written for Nature, The Guardian, The British Medical Journal among other publications. I have a blog called birdflu666. I offer proof that Billionaire George Soros and Alexis Tsipras read my blog and copy from it, underlining its credibility. In 2014, while staying at the monastery of St John the Forerunner in Anatoli, Ajia, I began to blog about the false flag Ebola outbreak in West Africa and highlight the role of Soros and others in an orchestrated Ebola outbreak. I also give information on the fractional reserve banking fraud. In April 2015, after I made an apparently successful intervention to stop a dangerous piece of legistlation being passed in the UK, the Medical Innovation Bill, the Abbess Theodekti Vallianatou made an attempt to have me forcibly confined on account of my journalism activities. Seizing her last opportunity just as I was about to leave the monastery, she sent away the second in command, Brisith national and Oxford graduate Theoktisti Emsley, who had been following my blog, and attempted to use an emergency law requiring only two witnesses to confine me. After her attempt because the police refused to come, she and Theonike used extreme violence against me. I left the monastery the following day and filed charges in Larisa. One week later on April 27th, Theodekti, through Theoktisti, attempted to bribe my then lawyer, Konstantinos Christopoulos. He himself admitted it in a handwritten note in another legal context.
In February 2015, I presented evidence of a large scale cover up by state prosecutors, police and lawyers, also sent to the Areios Pagos in Athens. The state prosecutor in charge of my case changed from Christina Fasoula to Katarina Papaioannou, who delivered her verdict two months later in 8th April without conducting any investigation, and who repeated the same flaws. In the file, I found evidence that police and state prosecutors had fabricated a person to direct the investigation away from Theodekti and four witness statements, which contradict each other and themselves as well as my evidence. Essential witnesses repeatedly requested continued to be ignored in violation of my right to present my case fully.
It also emerged that the Ministry of Interior was identified as the orign of the instructions to question a fake witness in a key letter signed by Larisa deputy police commissioner Asterios Mantziokas.

EXCLUSION OF ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES

1. THEOKDEKTI’S PERJURY AT LARISA COURT IN FEBRUARY 2016
Essential evidence Γ16/ 508 in the possession of state prosecutor Papaioannou concerning Theodekti s verifiable perjury at Larisa court on 22 February 2016 has been disregarded in violation of her obligation to consider the totality of all evidence impartially.
(Evidence 6, Δ 15 /218, ΕΓ 4 – 16 /13, Γ16/ 508)
The evidence is unambiguous and consists of statements made under oath by Theodekti, also made on behalf of Theoktisti, which, among other things, deny any knowledge of the contents of my blog and emails from me to both of the above concerning information from my blog proving Theodekti was lying.
(Evidence 6)
This proof of perjury should have been included by state prosecutor Papaioannou because it establishes th motive of Theodekti for participating in a defacto murder attempt against me on account of my journalism activities. It also undermines her credibility.
2. THEODEKTI’S BRIBERY ATTEMPT
Other essential evidence in the possession of state prosecutor Papaioannou concerns Theodekti s attempt through Theoktisti to bribe my then lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos on 27th April 2015 has been disregarded by her to my disadvantage.
This evidence consists of a handwritten note by Christopoulos admitting the bribery attempt in the context of another legal case in Germany. (Evidence 11)
A hand written confession elevates the evidence to th status of fact. It is no longe rpossible t ignore it as it has been done by Papaionnou.
This proof of Theodekti’s bribery attempt is complimented by significant other circumstantial evidence that the police suppressed charges filed over it. This is detailed by me in my report to the state prosecutor in the Areios Pagos. (Evidence 3, Α Π 372)
This proof should have been included by Papaioannou in her verdict because a bribery attempt is an indirect admission that the crimes I allege were committed and also of a cover up.
But Papaioannou has igored this proof altogether. I allege she is suppressing evidence of the improper influence on my case to be excluded because it is ongoing and she is implicated.

3. ESSENTIAL WITNESSES THEOKTISTI, THEOSOSTE, THEKLA, THEOSEMNI
The testimonies of essential witnesses Theoktisti, Theososte, Theosemni and Thekla, have been excluded by State Prosecutor Papaioannou in violation of my right to present my case fully even though they are mentioned in my criminal charges on April 22, 2015, as essential witnessed and I have repeatedly asked for them to be questioned. (Evidence 4, 5)
I repeatedly asked prosecutorPapaioannou in written requests to redress the failure of her predecessor Christian Fasoula and have the essential witnesses questioned., especially Theoktisti But she did not do so in violation of her obligation to conduct a proper investigation and obtain all information relevant to the case before making her decision.

INCLUSION ONLY OF THE ACCUSED AND NON ESSENTIAL BIASED WITNESSES

While the essential witnesses proving my case have been systematically ignored, the testimonies of the accused or biased witnesses to my disadvantage have been included by Papaioannou. (Evidence 8)
Witness Th. Vallianatou was not questioned and their identity was not ascertained apparently because Th. Vallianatou is a fake identity constructed by police and justice officials to allow Theodekti to evade prosecution. (Evidence 2, 3)
The four witnesses, who did give testimony at Ajia police station on 17 th November 2015 and who have been selected have to testify at the trial in November 2016, are the two accused, a biased witness and a non essential witness. None of my essential witnesses have been asked to testify at the trial.
Yet even these four witnesses contradict each other in essential matters and confirm my version. And yet state prosecutor Papaioannou has not investigated these inconsistencies and contradictions by calling me to give an additional statement or other witnesses to discover the truth.
The two accused Theodekti and Theoniki have not been asked to give sworn statements. They have been allowed to make unsworn statements in what appears to be a ruse by police and state prosecutors to allow them to avoid perjury charges.
Australian Garyfalya, who is dependent on the accused as a novice, and who omits essential evidence that she read my blog, says she developed a friendly relationship with me on account of sharing the English language and on account of the fact I often went to the kitchen where she worked. Yet Garyfalya never mentions that I had a drink problem or self harm problem, the key claims of Theodekti and Theonike. She also categorically states that Theodekti “blessed” my stay.
Likewise, Roula Kominou contradicts Theodekti’s claim that I was constantly causing trouble in the monastery by saying I had a healthy relationship with the sister and she was shocked and could explain the sudden turn of events in April 2015.
Roula is also dependent on the accused in as far as her daughter is a novice at the monastery and she has set up the local taverna with the help of the monastery.
Roula says she collected me on the evening of April 20th from the monastery, about 6 pm, and brought me to Larisa. But she does not mention that I was drunk.
Her version, therefore, contradicts and is inconsistent with Theonike’s version. Theonike claims that it was my drunkenness which made me fall against furniture on April 20th shortly before I left the monastery with Roula and that is where I got my bruises from. But I had really been drunk, Roula would have noticed it and said so in her sworn statement and so would Garyfalya.
If I were not drunk, as both Roula and Garyfalya indirectly confirm, how did I get the bruises? Theonike version that I received the bruises came from throwning myself at furniture is no longer plausible.
It is vital for state prosecutor Papaioannou to conduct an investigation into this obvious contradiction about a vital question of whether I was the victim of physical assault or drunk and self harmed myself by questioning other essential witnesses, and yet she has not done so.
Also how is this possible that the drink and self harming problem that characterised my entire stay at the monastery of 18 months according to Theodekti was not noticed by either Garyfalya or Roula or mentioned by them in their witness statements?
Moreoever, Theodekti indirectly admits trying to lock me up in the office using violence and calling the police to have me confined on April 19th.
Theodekti claims that it was necessary to call the police to have me removed from the monastery because I refused to go. The reality is the opposite. I was about to leave the monastery as emails prove and asked Theoktisti to return me some money I had left in safekeeping. Theodekti overheard the conversation and called the police to have me forcibly confined me to stop me leaving as a free person. (Evidence 12)
Moreover, Theodekti admits she knew about my journalism activities, which was the motive she gave me for calling the police and confining me. She also admits she knew that I was persecuted. That alone implies that she knew about the case of Lukas Kenner in Austria, who was investigated by police for attempting twice to illegally confine me. In fact, Theodekti knew very well about the crime of Lukas Kenner. She just decided to commit the same crime, apparently in the hope of financial gain. (Evidence 13)
She herself admits indirectly locking me into the office but denies the intention false imprisonment by saying that I could have left the office by exiting via the windows. As a matter of common sense it follows that a person who has to leave the room by using windows has been locked up.
To support her claim that I could have got out easily via the windows, Theodekti supplies four photographs of the office, two of the exterior and two of the interior. The two photos of the interior confirm the impression of a fortress like room with a heavy wooden door and window frames. The two exterior photos are taken from an odd side angle t obscure the distance of the drop from the windows onto the uneven concrete below. But even manipulated photos do nevertheless give some idea of the five or so metre drop onto concrete with the added obstacle of steep steps.
It is far more likely that a person jumping out of the window from that height would suffer serious injury either from hitting the uneven steps from window 1 or the lower ground from window 2. Theodekti could reasonably have foreseen that an attempt to jump out o fthe window would have resulted injury such as a compund fracture of the femur which could result in severing the femoral artery and in death.
Being forced to jump out of window onto concrete five metre below is beyond the ambit of freedom of movement. Having to exit a room only by risking serious injury can no longer be viewed as free movement. Any jump from a window five metres onto concrete ascresult of being locked into an office is an act of coercion.
In addition, Theodekti claims the reason I was not locked in was because I had a key. But it is a matter of common sense that I would not need a key if I had not been locked in. In addition, the fact is I did not have any key with me at all, and never had access to the special office key.
So, Theodekti admits in her own statement that she attempted to lock me into a fortress like room with no exit other than through windows and a drop of five or more metres onto concrete. But the act of locking some one in a room implies coercion. It is a matter of common sense that an attempt to lock someone else is is accompanied by violence of some kind.
Yet, in spite of Theodekti’s own admission that she attempted to lock me into an office from which I could not reasonably be expected to escape except by jumping five metres onto concrete and steps, state prosecutor Papaioannou has ordered no investigation and no questoning of essential witnesses.
I have offered emails and other concrete proof that I planned to leave the monastery supporting my claim that Theodekti sprang a trap on me at the last moment. But prosecutor Papaioannou has failed to investigate this crucial piece of evidence proving the malice of Theodekti’s intention.
Theodekti also indirect admits trying to forcibly confine my calling the police presumably because of my continuing “aggressiveness” caused by constantly being drunk. She admits calling the police. To call the police she is required to give a reason. But she admits herself indirectly she did not give a crime or misdemeanous. She says that the police in Ajia advised her to take legal action against me if she had a problem. But Theodekti did not take legal action because that requires evidence of wrong doing and she had no evidence.
This constitues prima facie proof that she had no proof or reason for calling the police.
State prosecutor Papaioannou is obliged to investigate theese glaring contradictions in the statements and ascertain the exact events on April 19th and yet she has not done so.
She has made no attempt to ascertain by questioning independent witnesses whether Theodekti said that she was going to confine me because of my journalistic activities or not even though uncovering the exact circumstances and motives for Theodekti’s attempt to lock me into the office are vital for the whole case.
Another statement of Theodekti that is implausible and inconsistent is her claim that she returned most of the money I transferred to her as donations when I asked for it.
I hardly left the monastery so how or where could I have spent tens of thousands of euros in cash?
I paid for all my things out of my bank account and cash as my bank transactions show.
Why would I ask for tens of thousands of euros cash to spend if I never left the monastery to spend it? What did I buy with it? Why would I give if I had given it to her for safe keeping, have asked for tens of thousands of euros back just to keep in my room?
State Papaioannou is obliged to conduct a proper investigation, examine the bank accounts and witnesses and find out whether Theodekti has my money or not. Theodekti has proposed Theoktisti as her witness to the fact that tens of thousands of euros in cash were given to me regularly. But Theoktisti has not been asked to give any statement at all.
In violation of her obligation to be accurate and factual, State Prosecutor Papaioannou rpeats the false claims of Theodekti in her charges against Theodekti! Papaoiannou has ignored my claim which I have made consistently and which is backed up by facts, namely that I never got any of the money back.
How can the judges decide whether my claim is valid or not if Papaioannou has misrepresented it? That fact that she has adopted Theodekti’s claims as her own indicates bias towards Theodekti.
Moreover, Papaioannou has disregarded the evidence of Theodekti’s perjury to the court in Larisa. This evidence, if included, would cement the impression that Theodekti’s vaccillating and contradictory statement makes of a liar.
Even taken on face value, theodekti’s and Theoniki’s are filled with improbabilities, contradictions and totally implausible.
Theodekti puts great emphasis on what a disturbed personality I was etc but it is only her subjective opinion back up by no psychiatric evidence or witnesses and, in this context, an obvious attempt to discredit and defame me.
Even supposing Papaioannou had no knowledge of my blog, she has received from me in the past two months since she took on the case significant and substantial reports and evidence prepared by me and written in a clear, coherent, logical manner and showing a correct application of legal principles, must have alerted her, if she were unbiased in her approach,
The only way to determine the truth of Theokdekit’s claims is to question the essential witnesses, but this is what Papaioannou resolutely has refused to do. I claim she has refused to question the essential witnesses because she knows that Theodekti and Theonike’s claims are lies but that these lies must be maintained if she is to obtain an acquitall for them, which is clearly her aim.
Theonike’s vaccilating and untruthful statements are underlined by the way she claims I said things I did not, only to imply I am a liar. I never claimed in my charges related to the events on April 19th that Theonike was involved .as can be seen from my criminal charges filed at Larisa police station. I have only charged Theoniki in relation to the events on April 20th. Yet Theoniki falsely states that I have made accusations against her in relation to the events of April 19th. I have also not put information on my blog about St George, Karditsa. In response to the suggestion of Theodekti, I wrote a report for the Holy Synod on St George, Karditsa but that report was never posted on my blog.
Garyfalya has no criticism of me apart from that I wore make up and drew attention to the problematic nature of chemotherapy trial a sick sister was enrolled in. Emails to Theodekti prove that Theodekti was aware of that I wrote about medical matters and asked me for information. On her suggestion, I googled about the chemotherapy trial that Theodekti had enrolled sister Theoclete and did not find much evidence of success. I personally would consider it unethical and wrong to enrol someone who is very sick for an experimental chemotherapy trial, since the drugs could make a sickness worse. Yet I confined my objections to a few comments recognizing that Theodekti was so excited at the thought of a “free” trial that she did not think about the possible adverse effects.
Also, Garyfalya falsely claims I said I was suicidal in April 2014. What I may have said, is that I would rather be dead than forcibly confined by the medical mafia under some pretext and tortured to death by them. I think most people would agree with my view if they were in my position. Garyfalya knew about my blog, the Lukas Kenner case, but she deliberately and systematically omits this information to give an entirely misleading impression.
Even if Garyfalya’s statement is taken at face value, then the fact that Garyfalya mentions only hearing me once talking about suicide proves that all the rest of the time I never talked about it ie am not suicidal.
Taken together, the statements of Theodekti, Theonike and Garyfalya could provide a spurious pretext to have me forcibly confined at the end of the rigged trial. According to these plainly inconsistent and false statements, I am drunken, self harm and suicidal.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE FAKE IDENTIFY TH VALLIANATOU INVENTED BY JUSTICE OFFICIALS TO THWART JUSTICE
FAILURE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF TH VALLIANATOU
On 22nd September 2016, Larisa deputy police commissionar Asterios Mantziokas instructed the police in Ajia to take a statement from Th. Vallianatou in relation to my case apparently on the orders ultimately of the Ministry of Interior. (Evidence 2 )
Th. Vallianatou is named along with Theodekti and Theonike as one of the three witnesses who are asked to give statements that are not sworn at the police station.
There is, however, no sign of the witness statement of Th. Vallianatou in the file and no explanation for its omission as there should be if state prosecutor Papaioannou had conducted an investigation in accordance with procedures.
Deputy police commissioner XX also instructs the police at Ajia to find out the identity, name, address, and tax number of Th. Vallianatou. But there is no sign that the police have complied with these instructions.
Yet, police and state prosecutors clearly consider Th. Vallianatou to be an essential witness in my case because this person is one of only six witnesses asked to give a statement at Ajia police station along. Indeed, Th. Vallianatou is the focus of the investigation initiated by police officer Evangelas Toutounas in his handwritten note in July 2015. (Evidence X ) The importance of Th. Vallianatou is underlined by the fact that this was the name of the accused on the charge sheet shown to me by state prosecutor Christina Fasoula in February.
These facts show that, although completely unkown to me, Th. Vallianatou is clearly a central and pivotal figure in my case in the eyes of the police and state prosecutors.
In written questions submitted to state prosecutor Papaioannou on XX, I, therefore, asked her to tell me who Th. Vallianatou was, what was their full name and address (Evidence X ) and what they were accused of along with the question as to whether I was a party or a witness. As mentioned earlier, Papaioannou promised to tell me the answer to these questions in two months time.
But while State prosecutor Papaioannou is obliged to produce the witness statement of Th. Valliantou, as well as their name, address and tax number, she has failed to do so in breach of her duty to conduct a thorough investigation in accordance with procedures.
I submit that the reason why Papaioannou did not look into who the witness Th Vallianatou was and why Th Vallianatou did not make a statement witness statement to Ajia police is because Papaioannou knows Th Vallianatou does not exist. She knows Th Vallianatou is a “shell” or fake identity constructed by police and state prosecutors soley for the purpose of misdirecting the investigation to the advantage of Theodekti.
Th. Vallianatou seems, in fact, to have the characteristics of an “offshore” shell entity exempt from taxation and with no clear place of residence yet able to enter into communication and transactions with Larisa police and state prosecutors, to be named in official documents and to carry out other “business” in my case.
The construction of a fake entity Th Valliantou by police and state prosecutors for the purposes of perverting the course of justice is a substantial violation of procedure, and state prosecutor Papaioannou has been complicit in participating in this “offshore” holding by failing to seek to identify who they are or what statement they have to make as a witness in my case.
FALSE STATEMENT OF MY CASE IN RELATION TO THE CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT
In addition, Papaioannou has biased one of her the charges against Theodekti on Theodekti’s own witness statement, which was not even given under oath, and which has been consistently contradicted by myself. (Evidence, 1, 3,4,5)
Also, in violation of rules and procedures that a crime should be clearly formulated so that this court can identify with precision the legal issue it is called upon to decide on, Theodekti has used vague and confusing wording and introduced factually incorrect, indeed, invented sums, to charge Theodekti with embezzlement.
Without conducting any investigation, Papaioannou has taken over the false claims of Theodekti made in her own witness statement and wrongly suggests these are my claims. (Evidence, 8)
I cannot hope to have my 100, 000 euros returned if Papaioannaou uses a the wording is confusing and gives the false impression that I have made the claim and that I have said I have received most of it back from Theodekti.
Furthermore, Papaioannou obscures th e real crime of Theodekti on April 19th of conspiracy to commit premediated murder by torture by her false formulation. It is vital for my case to establish the fact that I asked for the only cash I had ever given to Theodekti for safe keeping back because I was about to leave the monastery. Theoedkti sprang her trap at the last moment. A side effect of her crime would have been that she obtained control of my cash.
By chosing to accuse Theodekti in the terms Theodekti has used to frame her defense, , and by failing to investigate the factual and other evidence that Theoedkti is lying, Papaioannou has shown bias towards Theodekti and set up her Theodekti for acquital.. The false impression is given tha I freuently asked for my cash back and had no intention of leaving the monastery when Theodekti sprang hr trap.

FAILURE TO BASE CHARGE OF BODILY ASSAULT AGAINST THEONIKE ON EVIDENCE
In addition, the fact that state prosecutor has charged Theonike and not Theodekti with bodily harm is not based on evidence and shows bias. I was physically assaulted by both Theodekti and Theoniki.
It is difficult to know on what basis Papaioanno has concluded that Theodekti has committed these crimes precisely because she has conducted no new investigation in the two months. If she bases her verdict charges on my written evidence because she finds it so credible, then why has she ignored all the restof my written evidence of greater crimes which is equally credible and which says Theonike should be accused of physical assault, attempted strangulation and murder threats and Theodekti of the conspiracy to commit pre meditated murder by torture etc
Since State Prosecutor Papaioannou has conducted no investigation, questioned none of the essential witnesses, to establish which of the two is guilty of bodily harm., her decision to arraign Theonike with bodily harm and not Theodekti exposes her to the charge of bias in favour of Theodekti.

THE CRIMES THAT PROSECUTED
On the basis of the evidence submitted (Evidence 1,3,4,5,6, 12, 13 and other evidence)and on the basis of otherfacts such as the police doctor’s report and on the basis of the implausibility and inconsistencies of the accused witnesse statements (Evidence, 8) and as would be shown by quetioning essential witnesses, the accused’s crimes should be replaced with the following:
conspiracy to commit premedited murder by torture
A) a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder by torture
AND in the light of subsequent developments
B) a conspiracy to cover up her crime
AND
a conspiracy to use a method for perverting justice, which is calculated to set the victim, myself, up for another penalty, such as the penalty of making false accusations, either maliciously or out of “mental illness”.
AND
that others who are part of this conspiracy should be prosecuted

with the aggravating factor that her motive was my journalistic activities.
It is clear that actions that Theodekti and Theonike are being prosecuted for are not separate and unconnected crimes.
These crimes are all part of a single, overarching, much more serious crime, which was, however, unsuccessful.

A. Theodekti and her conspiracy to commit premeditated first degree murder by torture
Theodekti is guilty of an attempt at a first degree murder because evidence shows she acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation to carry out her plan.
I allege that the particular method that Theodekti used in April 2015 would, if it had been successful and completed, resulted in my death by torture, and that Theodekti knew this and intended it.
She and other members in the conspiracy chose this method to silence me, a journalist, jsut as I was about to leave the monastery and asked for cash I had given for safe keeping back to avoid having a dead body on their hands, an investigation and to avoid the publicity that would have resulted from the fact I am too well known as a journalist.
Acting as part of a conspiracy, Theodekti’s role was to deliver me by force into a pyschiatric facility after giving false testimony and using a special emergency law. This law allows a person to be forcibly imprisoned in a facility and injected with drugs for one month on the testimony of only two people before being presented to a judge.
I allege it is reasonable to believe I would have been presented to the judge in a drugged state to my disadvantage in arguing my case. Also, I do not speak or read Greek to my disadvantage. I may have been presented with a lawyer, who could even have been under contract to Theodekti (“the monastery wants to help a former visitor”) and could have been improperly influenced by Theodekti or others in the conspiracy.
I. She intended for her actions to result in my death. Her intention was murder
There are only three possible outcomes if Theodekti had succeeded in her plan and all of them would have resulted in my death
1. I would have been released from the pyschiatric unit after one month or shortly afterwards
2. I would have languished in the unit for a long time and died as a reseult of drugs
I would have been killed quickly by use of drugs
Possibile outcomes 1 to 3

1. It is possible I would have been released by a judge. But even if I had been released me after one month from the unit, I would have been left on the streets of a foreign country, Greece, without any ID, money, means to communicate or to survive, likely drugged, and so condemned to almost certain homelessness, hunger and eventual death.
Theodekti’s plan involved delivering me into a unit by force and without my ID, money, property or opportunity to inform anyone beforehand. That is why she chose to take me by surprise and lock me up in Theoktisti’s office while I was talking to Theoktisti after sending Theoktisti away.
Theodekti knew that as soon as I was delivered into the pyschiatric unit, all my property, documents, passport, computers, money, would be in her sole possession. I note that many of my documents such as my birth certificates needed to establish my identity have been taken.
She had no motive to return any of these items to me if I had been released and had asked for them because they would have empowered me to seek a conviction of her for her crimes.
2. I would have languished in the pyschiatric facility unable to leave.
Another possibility is that I would have been drugged, and allowed to languish for years in the psychiatric facility before dying as a result of the administration of drugs. The drugs would have been prolonged and the murder would have taken longer, but it would still have been murder caused through drugs or torture. Drugs given not to help treat a person for a mental illness but to silence a sane person are considered torture.
However, I think it unlikely that Theodekti and her network would not have risked letting me languish for years in a pyschiatric unit because of their reasonable fear that someone would have begun to investigate my disappearance as a well known journalist.Indeed, Theoktisti said to me she would have looked for me if and when she had found out I had vanished from the monastery.
I allege that Theodekti knew that Theoktisti may have looked for me and found meand would not have wished to risk the discovery.
3. I would have been killed quickly using drugs.
I contend the most likely scenario is that I would have been killed quickly in the unit.Themedical personnel inside the facility would have been bribed or improperly influenced by Theodekti and her network to use drugs to accomplish that aim.
Murder by torture and sadistic violence under these circumstances results in a dead body, but that dead body is not classified as a murder but as a patient who has failed to respond to treatment. So, if there had been an investigation by authorities, a “reasonable or lawful” explanation for my death could have been presented to hide the true motive.
To conclude, the method used by Theodekti, if completed and successful, would have resulted in my death by torture, and Theodekti knew that and intended it.
Much of my journalistic activity uncovers a substantial wrongdoing among medical personnel and regulators, and she could have relied on some support from some high ranking medical personnel.

II. Theodekti’s acted with deliberation and premeditation because she decided to commit actions that she had grounds to believe would kill me and carefully planned her approach.
The method Theodekti used showed a preconceived design that required her to use surprise, isolate me and imprison me, without my ID, computer, money, telephone etc. It required her to have one other “accomplice in the monastery” (two witnesses must testify to effect an emergency confinement under a special law). It also required her to send away Theoktisti Emsley, who would have testified that my blog posts met the criteria of journalistic activity and so prevented my forcible confinement since my blog posts were given as the reason by Theodekti for my mental illness and the need to confine me.
There was no sign that Theodekti’s decision was made rashly or impulsively. There was no provocation on my part, no accusations against me on her part, no signs of passion in her actions, such as shouting or anger. She acted with a cold and calculated determination to set in motion a premeditated plan at the last opportunity she had and just as I had told Theoktisti that I wanted the cash I had handed over for safe keeping returned to me before I left the monastery. My claim is supported by emails sent on April 18 2015.
Theodekti attempted to lock me up after she sent away Theoktisti to her Skete, called the police, and gave false testimony to have me unlawfully confined and deprived of my civil rights without due process, knowing that her a plan she intended would result in my death. That is, she intended to kill.
The fact that Theodekti immediately sent away the second in charge Theoktisti shows that she carefully weighed the considerations for and against her approach and, knew that the consequences, if she were caught, because of the testimony of Theoktisti, would result in a criminal conviction.
Other elements that indicate a plan are the speed with which Theodekti called the police. It appears she called the police or issued the instruction to another nun to call the police just before she attempted to lock me into the office because she told me about it immediately after I escaped from the office, and she did not make any call in the office. Speed was crucial to the success of her plan because she knew that Theoktisti, if she found out, would intervene and Theodekti would end up being convicted of a crime.
To conclude, Theodekti’s approach shows that she carefully weighed her options, and devised a plan before the act was done.
III. Theodekti is guilty of an attempt at first degree attempted murder because she lay in wait for me efore committing the act that she knew could she could reasonably expect to cause my death if successful.
1. she concealed her purpose from me her victim and from Theoktisti although Theoktisti is the second in charge of the monastery and generally consulted on all matters
2. she waited and watched for an opportunity to act

AND
3. she waited, intended to and did make a surprise attack on me.

When she realized I was about to leave the monastery, and was asking Theoktisti for the return of the money, she seized what she thought was her last opportunity.
She lay in wait for several weeks at least.
I contend that at least when she went to Athens early in March, and in the period afterwards until she returned just before Easter, she lay in wait for an opportunity to carry out her plan.
The decision by an Athens professor of Theology, known to me as Father Alexander, who seemed to be familiar with my blog, to hold the liturgy at Easter forced her to delay her plan until he had left the monastery.
I believe she used her time in Athens to deliberate with her fellow conspirators on the exact plan to silence me.
IV. Torture
Theodekti is guilty of the attempt to murder me by torture because of the method she chose.
She willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation chose a method of silencing me that would involve the infliction extreme and prolonged pain on me while I was still alive.
It is reasonable to believe that a sane journalist confined unlawfully and forcibly to a mental facility for the purpose of silencing them will be given drugs to cause harm, disorientation, pain, damage, and ultimately cause their death.
The use of pharmacogloical and medical torture for policital and other purposes is widespread in the world today and has been in history.
Under the pretext of giving a person treatment, a victim is given drugs by force causing distress, in the form of pain, anxiety, psychological disturbance, immobilization, or disorientation.
Theoktisti can testify that I often said to her that I was not afraid of death or murder by a clean shot, for example, but I feared being taken under some pretext into a pyschiatric unit and forcibly drugged and tortured before being killed.
The use of drugs to torture a dissident, Winston Smith, into compliance is described in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, and is widely recognized as a fate worse than murder for it involves prolonged torture, pain, distress and the impairment of mental faculties.

Motive

Theodekti gave my journalistic activity as her reason for her attempt to confine me before the witnesses Theosote, Thekla, Theonymphe, Theodoxee, Theophanie immediately after I escaped from her attempt to lock me into the office..
She only revealed her motive to me because she found herself forced to explain her actions to the other nuns who had gathered in the corridor.
Only at that point, and not before, did she reveal that my blog was the cause of her actions or what her intention was. She said that fact I did not write what anyone else did showed that I was mentally ill.
She also said I did not speak Greek and no one would believe me, showing more deliberation and careful weighing of factors in her plan.
The fact that Theodekti, however, sent away Theoktisti Emsley the second in command, an English native speaker, Oxford graduate, who followed and supported my blog, shows that Theodekti knew that I was sane and a journalist and committing a crime.
Theodekti’s act of perjury at Larisa court in February 2016 as a witness for lawyer XX, whom I found directing my former lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos in my case, was also aimed to hide her knowledge and the knowledge of Theoktisti of the contents of my blog posts precisely because it was the motivation for her actions.
She denied knowing that the subject of my blog posts were vaccines or that Theoktisti knew it, something I was able to prove was a lie from emails to her and Theoktisti referencing the Ebola vaccines.

Conspiracy

I allege that Theodekti was acting as part of a larger conspiracy that goes all the way up to Alexis Tsipras, who, as proof strong enough to be accepted in an unbiased court shows, not only reads but copies from my blog.
I saw her brother Grigoris Vallianatos at the monastery and I became aware, that he frequently rang Theodekti. Theodekti told me that Vallianatos is a graduate of the London School of Economics along with former Prime Minister George Papandreou (for whom he acted as an economic advisor according to media), George Soros and Lord Maurice Saatchi.
I not that Theodekti left the monastery unexpectedly at the beginning of March 2015 after I appeared to help make a successful intervention with MPs stopping a piece of legislation, which would have made the use of experimental Ebola drugs easier, sponsored by Lord Saatchi. (Evidence X)
I have offered proof that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Billionaire George Soros have direct, personal knowledge of my blog, and even copy from it. (Evidence X)
Soros and Tsipras have knowledge of my blog and they also have the motive, the means in the form of networks in Greece and the opportunity to silence me.
I note that Alexis Tsipras picked up a spelling mistake I made of the name of the Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann on my blog after he visited Faymann in Vienna in February 2015. I suggest that Faymann showed Tsipras my blog and my report on their meeting and put it into the mind of Tsipras that I needed to be silenced and even suggested the method.
I note that Faymann appears to be behind an illegal attempt to forcibly confine me in 2010 which was thwarted when the pyschiatricst approached, Dr Verena Strausz, refused. Faymann also seems to have been behind the cover up of this crime after the police investigated.
Although police inspector Engelbert Horwarth confirmed in emails, also to my lawyer in Austria in May 2015, that his report on the case was at the state prosecutor, no sign of it could be found. The file only emerged after I applied to the European Court of Justice.
In addition, Tsipras is reported by the media to hold frequent meetings with Archbishop Ieronymous of Athens. It is possible that Tsipras induced the Archbishop of Athens to help him silence me and cover up the crime and induced the Bishop of Volos to do the same.
After the premeditated murder attempt by torture failed, I allege the above group planned a sophisticated cover up. But to cover up their crimes was not enough. They wanted to set me up for a penalty, to silence me once and for all, either by defamation cahrges, bankrupted me or by forcible confinement.
At least, from the limited access I have had to my file, the court file, and conversations, the police, state prosecutor and lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos directed the investigation in the wrong monastery, ambiguous place and wrong bank transfers while concealing this from me.
The motive that they have is that I expose their agenda and the way it has potentially a negative impact on billions of people. The global pandemic plans foresee forced mass vaccination for virtually the entire globe in the event of emergency infectious disease declarations by WHO, as happened with the swine flu in 2009 and Ebola in 2014.
By giving evidence that the Ebola outbreak was not a random or natural event, but planned, I may have helped stop the outbreak, and so thwarted plans for large scale vaccinations.
In addition, I have given information on the way the fractional reserve banking system works and key legal cases such as the Jerome Daly foreclosure case which can be used to help protect countries like Greece and individuals against creditors. In short, the information on my blog seems to create significant problems for them in accomplishing their agenda. By exposing their wrong doing, I even present a danger to them.
CONCLUSION

To conclude, the appeal ougt to be granted to stop not a miscarriage of justice but the misuse of judicial procedures to inflict an unjust penalty on the victim.
The accused has not been arraigned in the charge sheet with the crimes that they committed in a failure of justice. The indictment that Theodekti should be accused of is the felony offence of premeditated attempted murder by torture of a journalist on account of their journalistic activities. The elements of this crime involve attempted false imprisonment, false testimony to the police, defamation, attempted embezzlement as well as perversion of justice, bribery, perjury, harassment and fraud.
Theonike should be charged with physical assault, death threats and attempted strangulation.
Others who participated in the perversion of justice should also be charged such as Konstantinos Christopoulos, who suppressed evidence that Theodekti had tried to bribe him in April 27th 2015, and police officer Evangelas Toutounas and Asterios Mantziokas for fabricating a fake identity Th Vallianatou to divert the investigation away from Theodekti.
But eevidence of these greater convictions has been suppressed to allow for a lesser convictions and of just two people.
The verdict is based on an erroneous approch to the treatment of evidence and unrweasonable and unsupported by the evidence.. The charge of bodily harm levelled against Theonike is not supported by evidence. Papaioannou has not conducted an investigation needed to determine the degree of culpability of Theodekti and Theonike., both of whom assaulted me.
The charge of embezzlement levelled against Theodekti is deliberately confused with Theodekti’s own false statements in a clear violation of the requirement to formulate charges factually so that this court can identify with precision the legal issue it is called upon to decide.
The lack of appreciation of relevant evidence and more particularly the complete disregard of such evidence’ is not a harmless error but shows a systematic violationsin procedures, prejudice, and is done wilfully, deliberately to avoid bringing to trial individuals for the crimes they have committed.
Prosecutor Papaioannou can reasonably foresee that if I am called as the only witness in my case with essential witnesses and evidence excluded, cannot speak Greek and forced to present my case through a Larisa lawyer who, it is reasonable to believe, will be improperly influenced by the court, Itheodekti will be acquitted.
By her actions, state prosecutor Papaioannou has helped keep in power a dangerous woman who poses a potential risk to essential witnesses such as Theoktisti.
Theodekti Vallianatou has revealed herself to be a hardened criminal, ready to use extreme violence, deceit and lies to achieve her goals. She has shown no conscience or remorse. She has been ready to commit perjury to the court in Munster, make false statements to the police in Ajia and to the court in Larisa to hide her wrong doing and pervert the course of justice.
She is especially dangerous because she enjoys the particular support of the Bishop of Volos, who has allowed her to run the monastery using her private bank account and apparently to keep private property in violation of church rules. She also enjoys the support of the Bishop of Larisa who supported a bid by Theodekti to raise money for the restoration of the old monastery through a concert in Larisa at Christmas.
As a result of this support from the highest ranks of the clergy, Theodekti can dominate the other nuns in the monastery. She controls the money, the communication lines (access to phones, computers and transport to and from the isolated monastery). She can, therefore, exert great pressure on those nuns who are essential witnesses of her crimes, specifically Theoktisti Emsley.
The cunning, brutality of Theodekti is best illustrated by the way she concealed her plan not only from myself but also from her second in command Theoktisti. Using surprise, Theodekti tried to have me forcibly confined under the very nose of Theoktisti. Knowing that Theoktisti would have intervened to stop her crime, Theodekti sent her out of the office without any explanation. When Theodekti failed in her sadistic and cruel plan, apparently because the police refused to come or because I had escaped from the office and was able to obtain my documents and my computer, Theodekti unleashed extreme and sustained physical and verbal violence on me. She incited Theonike to do the same. Under the influence of Theodekti, Theonike even attempted to strangle me twice and threatened to kill me.
After Theodekti failed to persuade me to stay in the monastery another night (when I believe she would have murdered me outright), and after she realized I had filed charges in Larisa on 22nd April, 2015, she attempted by deceit to bribe my lawyer through Theoktisti, as soon as she obtained his number.
I believe Theodekti, and her close associates, speicifally Theofili, present a real danger to the other nuns, especially to Theoktisti and the essential witnesses, because she Theodekti has the support of the Bishop of Volos and, apparently, the Archbishop of Athens.
The highest ranks of the Orthodox clergy have shown they are willing to be complicit in, at least, the cover up of the attempt to silence a journalist giving information on experimental vaccines and the private creation of money which is in the interest of 99.9% of the people of Greece. However, it cannot be excluded that they backed Theodekti from the beginning given the close relationship between the Archbishop of Athens and Alexis Tsipras, who is directly implicated in the murder attempt and cover up as a reader of my blog and through his control of the Ministry of Interior.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 11:46 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.